Court of Appeals of Virginia· 5/14/1991

Campbell v. Commonwealth

Citations

405 S.E.2d 1
12 Va. App. 476
7 Va. Law Rep. 2588
1991 Va. App. LEXIS 104

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

affirming conviction when “the natural consequence” of forceful blows “near [victim’s] spinal column and right kidney[] was disfigurement or disablement of the [victim]”
addressing, in the context of a closing argument, the distinction between a sufficiency challenge and an argument on the merits pertaining to the “weight of the evidence” favoring or disfavoring a conviction
affirming conviction for malicious wounding where the defendant brutally beat a three-year-old boy
three-year-old child beat fifteen times with belt causing extensive bruising that required hospitalization
“Furthermore, in a jury trial, the closing argument is addressed to the jury, not the trial judge, and does not require the trial judge to rule on the evidence as a matter of law. Only a motion to strike the evidence accomplishes that objective in a jury trial.”
superseded by statute on other grounds

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Barrow, Baker, Coleman, Benton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

68 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Campbell v. Commonwealth

36 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.